Male abuser transitions and released from prison.

*The sane goes for rape.

The molestation of children has nothing to do with sex drive and all about power over a vulnerable weaker person. The same goes for Rae. If it was about sex drive, they could solve that by having a wank. I’m absolutely disgusted with this decision and unfortunately it won’t be those who made the decision that will suffer because of this creep being released into society, but more vulnerable souls.

It’s not castration as there’s nothing permanent about it.

It is permanent if done long-term.

It’s also not being given as treatment for paedophilia.
**
It could easily be seen as a short-term fix for getting early release from prison by people who have committed abhorrent crimes if this goes ahead.

It's not being given as a ' treatment' for paedophilia, but it's clearly an alternative to a lengthy prison sentence.

But of course this never happens. Nobody would choose hormonal treatment if they weren't ' genuinely trans'.

Oh I see! When a man has a high sex he just can’t stop himself from raping women and children. That’s just biology. They’re only doing it because their sex drive is so damn high and they can’t help themselves. If their sex drive is lower then problem solved, eh?

Is high sex drive now usable as a defence for sex offenders? Of course not. So lower sex drive cannot possibly be used as a reason to let them out. Abuse is not just about sex.

I’m suddenly reminded of serial killers like Ed Kemper who managed to convince psychiatrists that they were safe to be released so they could carry on raping and killing.

How can they possibly analyse the likelihood of reoffending? Self-reporting doesn’t work in psychopaths, for example. Are they doing that thing where they place a sensor around the genitals and measure arousal? Because that won’t work if they’re on female hormones. Doesn’t mean the person not a risk, and that’s if they keep taking them.

What’s to stop every sex offender doing this?

Pale in Michelle’s post she says

“In this empathic, compassionate deconstruct of the behaviour you will find no mention of the victims anywhere, nor any suggestion that the offender should be expected to take any kind of responsibility for their own behaviour and management of their feelings“

Which is exactly what I’m talking about in schools. I’m not saying that children and adults should be treated in the same way, but that the idea that when you have the behaviour of an individual caused by unmet needs (I don’t agree that this is the root of all poor behaviour) then the focus should be on their needs and the needs of the victims/collateral damage is entirely overlooked is not an ideology peculiar to this case.

Poor behaviour is caused by ‘unmet needs’ and it is the fault of schools and society that those needs are not met. Every effort must be made to meet the needs of the individual, and then the behaviour will disappear.

Interesting isn't it, that the unmet need theory is applied only to some in some contexts - it's about separating population into the service recipients who are cared for by the service providers, based on much stereotypical class based decisions. For example GC females as a class are framed always as service providers who are reprehensibly refusing to soldier. You will never see TRA groups running around going 'this GC behaviour is an unmet need, we must have a no blame/no shame/ compassionate response in which our own feelings must be set aside, and we will provide support and care to meet this need so they don't need GC behaviours any more'. Instead the approach is wholly and furiously punitive in a highly Dickensian, anti Liberal hang em and flog em way.

I bang on and on about this but when you look at what comes up over and over again in serious case reviews where a child has experienced a major safeguarding fail:

• difficult adults were involved in the situation, often highly needy in themselves, whose behaviour was challenging, demanding and deeply unpleasant and overwhelming when they were displeased. Professionals were unequipped professionally or emotionally to stand up to this.

• those adults often either became the prime focus for the professionals, their needs taking up the time, the energy, the attention and resources, or their behaviour so successfully punished professionals for anything that made them feel emotionally uncomfortable that professionals backed off from expected boundaries, avoided challenging the person regardless of how the person breached policy/procedure/standard expectations or even legal requirements, and focus slipped to 'keeping the person on side' by never upsetting them. Often professionals were actively afraid to upset them. (Declaring that behaviour an unmet need without looking deeper shifts focus nicely away from you as a professional needing to unpack your own issues and responses and address them.)

• Professionals were overly concerned with understanding, relating to and supporting the adults involved, often based on ethical and organisational political ideals, and lost sight of the primary focus and purpose of their role.

Hold a serious case review into policy capture (and this will come, except it will more likely be a full scale public inquiry) and I'll bet there are the top three findings right there, all ready to go.

Jesus christ.

Why aren't TRAs up in arms against shit? It doesn't help their cause.

This is ridiculous. It’s isn’t absence or presence of testosterone that makes you a paedophile and child abuser.

Yes, tell us again how transgender people are the most marginalised and vulberable among us? Oh yeah, they're NOT.

How was he taking these hormones? As soon as he walks out the door he can stop taking them.

He might as well just say I won't offend any more because 'Simon Says'.

As could any other sex offender. Well, all of them.

How can people be this stupid?

noblegiraffe but of course it is completely different with children. We shouldn't blame teachers, but children are children and every effort should be made to meet their needs in order to try and get rid of the poor behaviour. A child who is misbehaving badly certainly does have unmet needs, they are just not necessarily ones that the school can meet. I am not sure that this is comparable at all.

Michelle it is a narrative that we see (obviously at a less extreme level) in schools at the moment.

Poor behaviour is caused by ‘unmet needs’ and it is the fault of schools and society that those needs are not met. Every effort must be made to meet the needs of the individual, and then the behaviour will disappear.

That the behaviour does not disappear is due to the failings of teachers and schools, and if they ‘give up’ on the pupil and expel them, they are leading the pupil to more extreme behaviour.

Any child whose education is disrupted by said misbehaviour isn’t taken into consideration, any teacher who quits because they can’t cope is ‘in the wrong job’.

I currently just want to hammer on the doors of Whitehall, screaming 'is there a grownup I can talk to?'
This right here.

And yes, Horse, that curious absence stands out to me, too. Especially in light of the accusation that FWR feminists post problematic stories without any evidence, when what I see here every day instead are links to news items, research papers, etc.

Sadly I have no doubt if you dug around in the minutes of the meetings around this decision, you will eventually find suggestions that his offending behaviour was probably in part caused by the stress of not having transitioned. Since I've seen that justification used by extremists in regard to sex offenders against women. They were just acting out their inner confusion and angst and distraught inner child and if they're in a female prison they won't feel the hard feelings and will be distressed enough to act out. (In this empathic, compassionate deconstruct of the behaviour you will find no mention of the victims anywhere, nor any suggestion that the offender should be expected to take any kind of responsibility for their own behaviour and management of their feelings.)

I honestly wish I was kidding. But once you see this crap your cynicism just gets driven ever deeper.

He could just stop the hormones though at any time.
Plus who says this abuse was about sex drive. It often isn't. He can still enjoy the power he has abusing children.

@HorseWithNoTimeForThis

Have you inboxed them to ask? maybe they missed it?

S'funny how the two woman haters on the other thread have nothing to say about this.

(No it isn't..)

So it's only a potential gender reassignment surgery?

Medical question? If they stop taking the hormones do they revert? Or is it lifelong damage?

How many children's lives need to be devastated in order to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that transition/hormones does not radically alter an offender's personality, core beliefs and sense of entitlement - all of which have to go with a sex drive in order to create a sexual offender.

Which is why we have a country full of males with brilliant sex drives who don't fucking go around raping those they're attracted to.

I currently just want to hammer on the doors of Whitehall, screaming 'is there a grownup I can talk to?'

Wow. Where is the justice.
Or common sense for that matter.

It’s not castration as there’s nothing permanent about it.

It’s also not being given as treatment for paedophilia.

It could easily be seen as a short-term fix for getting early release from prison by people who have committed abhorrent crimes if this goes ahead.

Another case of abuse in childhood in someone transitioning. Surely someone is joining the dots?

I thought society had moved on from considering chemical castration to be a suitable treatment for sex offenders. Barbaric.

Unfuckingbelievable.

At least 15 cases of abuse including the abuse of a one year old baby.

was originally ordered to stay behind bars indefinitely on the basis that she had the sex drive of a man.

They are saying testostone has lowred his sex drive.
How do they measure it?
Oh god this is awful.